[Ocfs2-devel] 答复： Re: [PATCH] Correct a comment error

[Changwei Ge]

On 2018/3/1 15:00, Lei Chen wrote:
> Hi Changwei,
> 
> Thanks for your review.
> 
> I think the original comment is not as clear as you said since
> the code does not reflect any relation between lockid and blockid.
> 
> Besides, the function inside indeed uses the block number for
> comparision. And it's really misleading for new beginners ,emmmm, like me.
It's OK. Any behavior to fix, improve ocfs2 is encouraged.

-Changwei

> 
> :)
> 
> Thanks,
> Larry
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>>> Changwei Ge <ge.changwei at h3c.com> 2018-3-1 上午 8:37 >>>
> Hi Larry,
> 
> On 2018/2/28 18:18, Larry Chen wrote:
>  > The function ocfs2_double_lock tries to lock the inode with lower
>  > blockid first, not lockid.
> 
> As ocfs2's lock name includes block number, so I think the comment you want to
> rework is all right.
> So nack.
> 
> Thanks,
> Changwei
> 
>  >
>  > Signed-off-by: Larry Chen <lchen at suse.com>
>  > ---
>  > fs/ocfs2/namei.c | 2 +-
>  > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>  >
>  > diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
>  > index c801eddc4bf3..30d454de35a8 100644
>  > --- a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
>  > +++ b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
>  > @@ -1133,7 +1133,7 @@ static int ocfs2_double_lock(struct ocfs2_super *osb,
>  >     if (*bh2)
>  >         *bh2 = NULL;
>  >
>  > -    /* we always want to lock the one with the lower lockid first.
>  > +    /* we always want to lock the one with the lower blockid first.
>  >      * and if they are nested, we lock ancestor first */
>  >     if (oi1->ip_blkno != oi2->ip_blkno) {
>  >         inode1_is_ancestor = ocfs2_check_if_ancestor(osb, oi2->ip_blkno,
>  >
> 
>